Skip to main content

Full text of "The Berean Searchlight - March, 1935 - Volume XIV - Number 1"

See other formats


MARCH, 1935 




Mailbag 23 

The Revised Standard Version 3 

1 Kept Nothing Back .... 3 

News and Announcements — .... 27 

From the Editor to You — 28 

Official Organ of the Berean Bible Society 

Published Monthly, Except Jtot 

Cornelius R. Stam, Editor 

2947 N. 17th St., Milwaukee, Wis, 

"These [Bkeeans] were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in 
that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched 
the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so"— Acts 17:11 

From Illinois: 

"Your booklet finds its place 
in my waste paper basket 
monthly. In one of my weak 
moments I put my name on a 
list to have the paper sent to 
me, I am full gospel . , . and 
yes, Mr. 5 tarn, we are encour- 
aged by our box of promises/' 

From Pennsylvania: 

"I have been searching the 
Scriptures, as the Bereans did, 
to see if these things sre so, 
and thanks be to Cod, they 
ARE. The things you teach are 
truths I have sought for years 
to understand. 1 * 

From Arizona; 

''When the Berean Search- 
light arrives we both sit down 
and read it from cover to cover; 
then go through it again and 
study. How we praise Cod for 
this monthly," 

From Illinois: 

"I have just finished reading 
the Berean Searchlight, I nev- 
er can put it down until I have 
read it all through/' 

From Illinois: 

"I do want you to know that 
when the Searchlight arrives, I 
could have hands in scrub 
water or full of dough, but I 
wash them and sit down and 
read every word/' 

From Maine: 

"Having been a 

for a number of years previous 
to receipt of the Berean 
Searchlight you may suppose I 
was rather opposed to most of 
the views expressed in your 
paper . . . I do not know 
whether I can fully agree now 
with everything you say, but it 
seems to me that you come 
nearer to understanding . . 
what a Gentile should believe 
than anyone else I know. I 
think we have made the mis- 
take of thinking that because 
we know now that Jesus died 
for Gentiles also, that every- 
thing jesus said to His Disciples 
was intended for us, I believe 
i1 is true that Paul's teaching, 
or the revelation of the mystery, 
should be our guide, and that 
we should remember humbly 
that we are Gentiles after the 
flesh and not Jews/' 

From New York: 

"I wish to take this oppor- 
tunity to thank you for the 
light you have thrown on the 
Word of Cod through the 
revelation of the mystery as 
revealed to the Apostle Paul. 
It is wonderful how the Scrip- 
tures open up to those who 
understand this key." 

From Wisconsin: 

"Here is a list of folks I 
would like the Berean Search- 
light sent to, and if possible 
please start them with the cur- 
rent issue . . , Enclosed find 
check to help defray cost of 


The Revised Standard Version 



We always regret it when, for any reason, it be- 
comes necessary to devote the pages of the Berean 
Searchlight to anything but definite Bible exposition, 
but this sometimes does become necessary and the 
question of the trustworthiness of the new Revised 
Standard Version of the Bible seems to be another 
such case. 

This translation of the Scriptures has been widely 
publicized as the new "authorized" version, comprising 
the findings from additional manuscripts of the Bible 
and archeological data brought to light since the pub- 
lication of the King James or Authorized Version in 
1611, and bringing up to date the archaic words and 
terms used in that version. 

The publishers of the Revised Standard Version 
have taken the country by storm in an aggressive ad- 
vertising campaign which at the outset convinced great 
numbers of people that here at last was an English 
translation that could be trusted and understood at 
the same time. 

The campaign which introduced the new transla- 
tion to the English-speaking people was so aggressive 
that some of the very leaders of Fundamentalism were 
taking part in rallies dedicating the "new Bible" with- 
out, apparently, even having examined it with any 
great care* 

When the Revised Version (the work of both 
English and American scholars) was completed in 
1885 there was similar excitement, and it was freely 
predicted that the Revised Version would soon dis- 
place the King James as the Bible of the English- 
speaking people. 

Actually, of course, the Revised Version did noth- 
ing of the kind, with the result that the American Re- 
vision Committee brought out its own translation in 
1901, calling it the American Standard Version, but 
neither did this translation even begin to displace the 
King James Version, 

Doubtless one reason for this is that the English 
language was at its purest when the King James, or 
Authorized Version was published. Few can read it 
without being moved by the beauty and power of its 
expression. Since that time the English language, 
especially as spoken in America, has been corrupted. 
Thus, while the Revised and American Standard Ver- 
sions are quite widely acknowledged to be more ac- 
curate translations word for word, it is by no means 
agreed that they give the sense as accurately. Not 
only do words have meanings; phrases, sentences and 
paragraphs have meanings too. Anyone who has done 
even a little translating from one language into an- 
other knows that it is possible to translate a document 
correctly as far as the words are concerned, yet in- 
correctly as far as the sense is concerned. 

Spurgeon is reputed to have said of the transla- 
tors of the Revised Version: "The gentlemen probably 
knew Greek but they didn't know English." 

So much for the Authorized, Revised and Amer- 
ican Standard Versions. What about the new Revised 
Standard Version? Will it displace the Authorized? We 
believe not — not among Fundamentalist believers, at 
least, and they are the ones who read and study their 


Bibles most. One thing is clear; the new Version is 
being more and more widely challenged. We list some 
of titie objections to it below, along with others of our 
own, abbreviating the names of the translations as fol- 
lows; King James, or Authorized Version: A.V-, Re- 
vised Version; R.V., American Standard Version: 
A.S.V. and Revised Standard Version: RS.V. 


What is the R.S.V. a revision of? It is called the 
Revised Standard Version, and the opening sentence 
of the Preface reads: "The Revised Standard Version 
of the Bible is an authorized revision of the American 
Standard Version, published in 1901, which was a re- 
vision of the King James Version, published in 1611." 
This would seem to be clear enough. The R.S.V. is a 
revision of the A.S.V., published in 1901. Yet as one 
continues with the Preface he reads mostly about the 
"grave defects'* of the A.V., published in 1611! Some 
examples follow: 

"The King James Version of the New Testament 
was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mis- 
takes," "We now possess many more ancient manu- 
scripts of the New Testament, and are far better 
equipped to seek to recover the original wording of 
the Greek text." "A major reason for revision of the 
King James Version ... is the change since 1611 in 
English usage." "All the reasons which led to the de- 
mand for revision of the King James Version in the 
nineteenth century are still valid. . . ." 

Thus the R.S.V. turns out to be rather another 
revision of the A.V. of 1611 than a revision of the 
A.S.V. of 1901.. In the promotion of the R.S.V., too, 
it is constantly compared with the A.V,, not the A.8.V. 
While the reason for this is doubtless that the A.SV. 
and R.V. failed to displace the A.V., the fact that it is 

allegedly a revision of the A.S.V. of 1901 weakens the 
force of the arguments abdut the text "marred by mis- 
takes/' the lesser number of manuscripts and the 
archaic language of the A.V. of 1611. As Mr. Charles 
F. Baker has said, this is "as if Ford should compare 
the '53 model with the Model T." 

In brief, the committee in charge of R.S.V. should 
be able to point out, and clearly, the advantages of 
R.S.V, over A.S.V. This, we feel, has by no means 
been done, though we acknowledge, of course, the need 
of a new translation. 


Before dealing with the translation of the R.S.V., 
something should be said about the men who trans- 
lated it 

The opening sentence of the Preface declares that 
it is an "authorized" revision, but we ask: Authorized 
by whom? The Preface answers: "by vote of the Na- 
tional Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. 
in 1951." 

This should be enough for any Bible believing 
Christian, for the N.C.C. is an organization headed up 
by rank Modernists and Pinks, including even some 
Red sympathizers. But if this is not enough, it should 
be pointed out that in v looking over the list of transla- 
tors we do not recognize the name of one true Funda- 
mentalist. All are Modernists or worse, some of them 
even being, or having been, associated with one or 
more organizations cited by the Un-American Activities 
Commission as Communist fronts. One of the transla- 
tors of the Old Testament, Harry M. Orlinsky, is an un- 
believing Jew of The Jewish Institute of Religion who, 
of course, would hardly believe that there could be any 
references to Christ in the Old Testament. We will 
have more to say about him later on, but as one looks 


over the list he finds more names associated with Union 
Theological Seminary, so long a hotbed of radicalism, 
than with any other organization, and the organiza- 
tions with which the rest are associated are by no 
means all free from Socialistic and Communistic sym- 

William A, Irwin, one of those assigned to the Old 
Testament says that "there is no place for theology in 
Bible translation," This is so in the sense that no 
translation must be made in order to support any sys- 
tem of theology, for, as Irwin says again: "A 'theolog- 
ical translation' is not a translation at all, but merely 
a dogmatic perversion of the Bible" (An Introduction 
to the R.S.V. of the Old Testament, p.14). 

Yet it is not wholly true that "there is no place 
for theology in Bible translation." While the import- 
ance of the competence of the translator, his know- 
ledge of languages, etc, cannot, of course, be under- 
estimated, it is still true that the Book is best under- 
stood, and can be truly appreciated, only by those who 
know its Author (See I Cor. 2:14). This is unques- 
tionably another reason why the translators of the 
A.V. succeeded so notably. They— whatever their fail- 
ures—realized that they were handling the Word of 
God and had no questions as to the deity of Christ, 
This is not so with the translators of the R.S.V. 

But furthermore, the question comes to mind: If 
Irwin expresses the sincere view of the National Coun- 
cil of Churches in his statement that "there is no place 
for theology in Bible translation," why did the N.C.C. 
choose all Modernists and no Fundamentalists to work 
on the new revision? Irwin opposes the idea of "a 
theologically conservative translation of the Bible," but 
fails to point out that we have here "a Modernist trans- 
lation of the Bible/' Knowing that so many readers 
of the Bible do believe it to be God's Word, the revis- 

ton committee has worded its Preface very cautiously, 
but read it carefully and it will be seen that not once 
does the Preface say that the Bible is the Word of God, 
The reader may simply "discern and understand God's 
Word" by reading it This is typical Modernist 



One serious objection to the R.3.V, is the fact that 
its translators have left us no indication as to which 
words they have supplied. Every reader of the A.V, 
can tell at a glance which words the translators sup- 
plied when they felt it was necessary to convey the 
sense of the original, for such words are printed in 
italics. But with the R.8.V. it is impossible to distin- 
guish between the actual words of God and those sup- 
plied by the translators. 

This, to say the least, does not indicate the rever- 
ence for the written Word of God that the translators 
of the A.V. had. This is serious enough as it is, but it 
will appear the more serious to those who, like this 
writer, feel that the translators of the R.3.V. took un- 
warranted liberties where additions to the text are 

In Heb, 2:11, for example, the word "origin 1 * is 
added after "one," with no indication that "origin" is 
not in the original. In Rom. 5:2 the word "sharing" Is 
added, also without any indication that it is not in the 
original, There are many other such cases. 


It is granted that the translators, of the R.S.V. 
had more evidence and equipment to work with than 
any preceding group. They had additional manu- 


scripts* and archeological data which should have 
clarified many an obscure passage and doubtless have 
clarified some. Yet as we study the volume it seems 
that the translators have used their additional data in 
a wrong way. Indeed it seems as if they have taken 
advantage of every opportunity to water down or cast 
doubt upon the fundamentals of the Christian faith, 
especially the deity of our Lord and Savior Jesus 



One of the subtlest attacks on the deity of our 
Lord is that which concerns the use of personal pro- 
nouns. The words -'thee, thou, thy, thine" are archaic. 
Dr. Luther A. Weigle, chairman of the Revision Com- 
mittee, has said with respect to them: "After two years 
of debate and experiment it was decided to abandon 
these forms and to follow modern usage, except in lan- 
guage addressed to God." 

Thus in language addressed to God the Father the 
reader finds the words "thee" and "thou/' Indeed, 
even the/sun (Josh 10:12) and "Babylon the great/' 
the "motSer of harlots" (Rev, 18) are addressed as 
"thee" and "thou ? " implying deity. But when the read- 
er of the R.S/V. comes upon language addressed to 
Christ, what does he find? "Your divine throne" (Psa. 
45: 6) , "What have you to do with us?" (Matt. 8:29), 
"You are the Holy One of God" (John 6:69), etc. The 
natural conclusion would be that the Bible teaches 
that Christ is not God 

It should be noted, however, that this policy of 
reserving the grave style for "deity" is not explained 

*It must be remembered tbat there are no truly original 
manuscripts of the Bible* This is well, for if there were certain 
branches of the professing Church would be worshipping them, 
forgetting Psa, 119:89. 


in the Preface to the R.S.V. The translators do not 
raise the issue of the deity of Christ in this way, 
Rather, regular readers of the RS.V. will be left with 
a desired impression When reading about God they 
will find the pronouns "thee" and "thou" used, but 
when reading about Christ it will be "you," leaving the 
general impression that Christ is not God, Such meth- 
ods are subtle but very effective. This unannounced 
policy surely evidences want of candor if not also of 
courage, on the part of the Revision Committee and 
constitutes an unwarranted attack on the deity of the 
Lord Jesus Christ 

But this is not the only way in which the deity 
of Christ is attacked by the R.S,V. The revisers have 
changed so many passages so as to deny or water down 
the truth of our Lord's deity that one cannot help feel- 
ing that the truth has been corrupted; that the revis- 
ers have used their positions as translators of the 
Bible to express their views against the deity of Christ* 
As we consider the consistency of the attack on our 
Lord's deity, and the number of passages altered or 
omitted in this attack, we must remind Dr. Irwin of 
his own statement that "a 'theological translation' is 
not a translation at all, but merely a dogmatic per- 
version of the Bible/' 


In some cases the translators have changed the 
wording to affect the truth of our Lord's deity, fre- 
quently without any apparent jus tification. 

In Psa. 2:12 "Kiss the Son" is changed to "kiss 
his feet." A marginal note reads: "Cn. The Hebrew 
of lib and 12a is uncertain/' But we ask: If the He- 
brew is uncertain as far as these translators know, 
why did they change the phraseology of the A.V. in so 
important a connection? Should they not have left it 

j^mifcf^ ASi-rr^ IT i' j/ - \ 





as in the A.V. on the grounds that the former transla- 
tors may have noted some evidence which the R.S.V, 
translators had overlooked or which had since become 

In Psa. 45:6, where the Son is addressed in the 
words: 'Thy throne, O God . . ." (Cf. Heta. 1:8), the 
R, S. V. has changed the reading to "Your divine 
throne," thus bringing the eternal existence of our Lord 
into question, 

Matt, 21:44, where Christ is spoken of as the 
Stone who will grind His enemies to powder, is omit- 
ted entirely. 

In John 1:27 the words "is preferred before me" 
are omitted, so that John is made to say only that 
Christ came after him. 

In John 6:47 "He that belleveth on me hath ever- 
lasting life" is changed to read: "He who believes has 
eternal life," The words "on me" are left out. 

In John 6:65; 14:12; 16:10 Christ is made to call 
God "the Father" instead of "My Father," as in the 

In Acts 7:37 the words J'Him shall ye hear" are 
left out and the remainder of the verse is altered to 
mean simply that Christ, like Moses, was raised up 
from among his brethren, putting Christ on the same 
level with Moses, j^g /HfBR/fflTp fZ&APiVfr is ^%ti*it*****Q 

In Eph. 3:9, where we read that "God . - . created^ e& && ur 
all things by Jesus Christ/' the words "by Jesus 
Christ" are omitted *f&f$. w#s £&&/r?M stra- 
in. Heb, 2:11, where we are told that "Both he 
that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of 
one," the revisers have added the word "origin," mak- 
ing the verse a flat contradiction of the deity of Christ. 
Nor do the revisers tell us in what manuscripts or texts 
they find the word origin. If it is not there they had 

P*&*r <%ij iT& foil-*** 11 r*'** f£ffl/t4r4&4*t/ T 4 *^ 

C#VLP tf/E Cotf&df*. * &K "sP&Ate &F $40&Q£. 


no right to add it arbitrarily. If it is there they should 
have presented the evidence. Frankly, we cannot see 
why they would not have advanced evidence to prove 
that the word "origin" belongs in the verse if there 
were such evidence. Such cases as this give us grave 
reason to suspect that some, at least, of the translators 
of R.S.V. were determined to cast as much doubt as 
possible upon our Lord's deity, even at the expense of 
fidelity to their work as translators. 

In Rev. 1:11 the phrase "I am Alpha and Omega, & &il **J£ 
the first and the last/' referring to Christ, is omitted. (A/ ****** 
/ In Rev. 5:14 the reference to our Lord as "him a^ Sq Tt ^ 

]/ that liveth for ever and ever" is omitted. 

/ In Rev. 11:17 the phrase "and art to come," also ^j* r€< 

^ referring to Christ, is omitted. 


The doctrine of the deity of Christ is further 
vitiated in the R.8.V. toy the omission of titles which 
might convey the idea of deity, by the omission of 
words or parts of titles which might indicate that 
Christ is referred to in passages where His deity is 
involved, or by the changing of such titles to others 
which do not connote deity. For example: 

In Luke 24:3 the words "of the Lord Jesus" are 
omitted. :ir & catft*vS rk^-r C&ttwri grop/ ts $&P£$&& & ri 

In Acts 8:37 the Ethopian's testimony: "I beIieve7 T^^^ 
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God/' is omitted en- 0i 
/ In I Cor. 15:47 the words "the Lord" are left out, CcM&CT* 

In Col. 1:2 the words "and the Lord Jesus Christ" ^tff 
are omitted, as they are also from I Thes, 1:1, 

In I Cor* 16:22 the words "Jesus Christ" are $e-<ftO£ &t/£ 
leted from the declaration: "If any man love not the outfit 
Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema, Maranatha/' 



making it to mean simply that if any man does not 
,love God, he will be cursed. ■ 

/ Similarly, II Tim. 4:22 is made to read "The Lord " l ^ e . 

be with your spirit" instead of "The Lord Jesus Christ /*u/*"V 
be with your spirit." Both the above passages avoid 
designating Jesus Christ as the Lord, as He is in A.V. 

Then there are the passages in which the R.S.V. 
changes our Lord's titles so as to negative the truth of 
i His deity. For example: 

7///s In Matt - 27:54 Kthe Son of God " is chan ^ ed t0 

read "a son of Go&? J$faA{TtCL£ SWwW $& oSirt> AT.fil>± 
h j In John 6:69 Peter's declaration: "Thou art that 

I/ Christ, the Son of the living God," is changed to read: ^ 
"You are the Holy One of God." Tr is /aJ tf$-rrib'Jb x < 

/ In John 9:35 "Son of God" is changed to "Son of 

V man » 

man." ^ £ ^ 

5* fc 



In Isa. 7:14 the word "virgin" is rendered "young £ ^ JU 
woman," affecting the doctrine of our Lord's virgin ^ 

birth. Since this rendering of R.S.V. has caused most .^ 
controversy, we will deal with it under a separate |g h | 
|#</<SA//P heading hereinafter. £ UnwnCA^ f $ odffec r~— ->^ - | 
pi 4K6 In Luke 2:33 the words "Joseph and his mother" ^ j; J 

r are changed to read: "his father and his mother," im- fj ^ 
plying that Christ was not virgin-born. Not even a 
ujww note of explanation is given. Surely the evidence and ^ 

arguments for so important a change should have been sy v 
^° submitted. s ^ 

i / In I Cor. 5:7 and I Pet. 4:1 the words "for us" 

are omitted, affecting the doctrine of the vicarious 
death of Christ, and suggesting merely that He was 
sacrificed and did die, but not necessarily "for us." 
~%r /s sto-<- T£»e W&* M&pjgP fo% t?S 


(w this eajif (?f HA^y OT^rfZ PAjsai&5 

i ■ 

y In Col. 1:14 the clause "through His blood" is 

omitted from the statement: "In whom we have re- 
demption, through His blood," casting doubt upon the 
necessity of the shedding of Christ's blood for salva- 

/ In Heb. 1:3, in the phrase: "When He had by 

Himself purged our sins," the words "by Himself" are 
omitted, bringing the vicarious death of Christ into 
question from still another angle. 

/ Mark 15:28, "And the Scripture was fulfilled, 

which saith, And He was numbered with the trans- 
gressors," is omitted in its entirety. 'J r u /A , '&§:$ IZ-31 

In Luke 24:6 the words "He is not here, but is 

risen" are omitted. 

j Luke 24:12, the passage which tells of Peter view- 

ing the evidences of Christ's resurrection, is omitted 
entirely. ^T r , j w $N Wl&jb 

/ Luke 24:40, where our Lord Himself presents the 

evidences of His resurrection, is also omitted entirely. 

/ In Luke 24:51 the words "and carried up into 

heaven," with respect to our Lord's ascension, are 
omitted. (il<~ t($\{({ rtQ-J t T~ 

I In John 16:16 the words "because I go to the 

V Father" arp nminprt 


Father" are omitted. 

In Heb. 2:7 the words "didst set Him over the 
works of thy hands" are omitted. 

We do not contend that none of the changes or 
omissions referred to in this article has been made 
without any justification, but we do insist that the 
great number of passages (we have given only ex- 
amples) altered or. omitted so as to water down the 

t£-K fundament£as ' of the faith ' indicates tha * the transla- 
tion Yors have used their positions as translators to attack 


J~T & tftfv/ei/J Tfr&y w^' a ^«r &-tv& 

the very truths the Bible teaches, especially where the 
person and work ol Christ are concerned. 

THE ISAIAH 7:14 QUESTION ?P<& &VJ*i T** 4 - J A 

The translators of the R.S.V. have provoked most 
opposition of all, probably, by their rendering of Isa. 
7:14 as follows: "Therefore the Lord himself will 
give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall con- 
ceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Im- 

It will be observed that the word (Amah, rendered 
"virgin" in the A.V. in this passage has been changed 
to read "young woman" in the R.S.V. The basic argu- 
ments against this change are as follows: 

1. The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the 
Old Testament completed about 270 B.C., employs the 
Greek word parthenos or virgin in translating this pas- 
sage. Surely these seventy scholars of Hebrew and 
Greek, living when they did, knew the correct mean- 
ing of almah. ±*J />'> T. "irap<?woS tj£!*ll^ Vi*'*-'" " 

2. In Matt. 1:23 the Holy Spirit Himself quotes 
from Isa. 7:14 and also uses the Greek parthenos. 
Thus we have the Spirit's own declaration as to the 
meaning of almah. 

3. Isa. 7:14 says: "The Lord Himself shall give 
you A SIGN. BEHOLD a virgin shall conceive and 
bear a son." It would hardly be a sign, and the ex- 
clamation "Behold" would hardly be called for, if the 
passage merely stated that a young woman was to con- 
ceive and bear a son. 

4. According to Isa. 7:14 the son thus born was 
to be called "Immanuel" or "God with us," indicating 
that God Himself had thus come to dwell with men, 

Harry M. Orlinsky, the Jew referred to earlier in 
this article, defends the translation "young woman" in 


part as follows: "Early in the second century A.D. 
Aquila, a convert to Judaism, made an independent 
and unique Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. He 
incorporated the kind of Jewish interpretation which 
was current in his day, and he avoided the Christolog- 
ical elements which had been introduced in the Sep- 
tuagint text. Thus Aquila rendered the Hebrew word I 

ha-almah in Isaiah 7:14 literally 'the young woman' in 
place of the word Virgin' which the Christians had 
substituted for it. Unfortunately, only fragments of 
Aquila have survived'* {An Introduction to the R.S.V. 
of the Old Testament, p. SO). 

Could a shabbier argument be advanced against 
number 1 above? Think of it! The Septuagint was 
completed nearly three centuries before Christ, and 
without definite evidence that the translation of "ha- 
almah" had been tampered with in subsequent copies, 
this unbelieving Jew takes the word of an "independ- 
ent" translator of the Old Testament, who lived in the 
second century after Christ and who had "avoided 
the Christological elements" which Orlinsky says were 
"introduced" into the Septuagint text. Which, does 
the reader suppose, would be apt to be most free from 
bias where Christ is concerned: a copy of a translation 
of the Old Testament completed nearly three centuries 
before Christ, or a translation by a convert to Judaism 
living in the second century after Christ? Of course, 
Orlinsky gives no proof that Christians substituted the j 

word "virgin" for "young woman" in Isa. 7:14, or even 
that the term "young woman" was ever there at all. 1 

He only laments the fact that "only a few fragments ! 

of Aquila have survived"! 

It should be admitted that the Hebrew has an- ! 

other word, bethulah, which is the particular word 
for a virgin and is consistently translated so in both 
the A.V, and the R.S.V. But why cannot a synonym 

16 1 

also connote virginity? And why may there not be 
good reason for the Holy Spirit to employ such a sy- 
nonym rather than the word connoting virginity in its 
physical aspect? 

Our main objection to the R.S.V. rendering of 
Isa. 7:14 is that in translating almah by "young wom- 
an" the revisers have advanced the age of the subject 
referred to, so that virginity is no longer implied. 
They say a "young woman" is referred to, but we ask: 
How young a woman? 

Not once did either the A.V. or the R.V. trans- 
late almah by the term "young woman," but always 
by "damsel," "maiden" or "virgin." Even the R.S.V. 
uses "maiden" and "girl" five times out of seven, but 
here, where the question of our Lord's supernatural 
birth is concerned, it uses the term "young woman"! 

We contend that if the reader were told that a 
young woman and a girl, or a young woman and a 
maiden were standing at the door, he would immedi- 
ate conclude that one was considerably older than the 
other. One might easily be the mother of five children 
and still be considered a young woman by all. But' 
the terms "maiden" and "girl" (except in colloquial 
usage) are consistently applied to very young and un- 
married women, as a glance at a dictionary will show. 
Indeed, we often speak of a woman's "maiden name," 
i.e., the name which she bore prior to her marriage, 
and Webster's Unabridged Dictionary gives as its first 
definition under "maidenhood"; "State of being a maid 
or a virgin; virginity." In the light of this, how can 
it be denied, even on the basis of the way in which 
R.S.V. has translated almah in the majority of cases, 
that the prophecy of Isa. 7:14 refers to a virgin? 

We like- to feel that men with liberal views may 
still be capable translators and basically honest in their 


efforts, but we cannot help asking why the translators 
of the R.S.V. advanced the age of the subject involved 
in this way, casting doubt upon the virgin birth of 
Christ and nullifying the predictive quality of Isa. 7: 14, 
when they themselves rendered ahnah by the words 
"girl" and "maiden" in the majority of other cases. 
Does this indicate that liberalism in theology leads 
to liberalism where right and wrong are concerned? 
Have these men been careless with the truth? We 
cannot silence this question. 

Here in Milwaukee the illegitimacy of this R.S.V. 
rendering was brought out in a recent public panel 
discussion recorded by stenographers. 

Dr. John Trevor, member of the Revision Com- 
mittee, was asked about the translation of "almah" in 
Isa. 7:14. He answered in part: "The Hebrew does 
not say virgin ... in Isaiah 7:14 he does not use the 
word which means virgin." Yet Dr. Trevor also said: 
"They did put the words 'or virgin' into the footnotes, 
out of deference to the fact that the Church tradition- 
ally had the word 'virgin' and . . . that the Greek manu- 
scripts have the word parthenos." 

In the first place, this raises the serious question: 
How can we trust translators who put down as an al- 
ternative rendering a reading which they are convinced 
is not true to the original? 

But Dr. Trevor went on to defend the R.S.V. 
rendering by saying that the word almah meant, not 
virgin, but "a young woman of marriageable age" 
(Italics ours). And before he was through he was 
even saying: "He [Isaiah] is simply talking about a 
girl, or a young woman" (Italics ours). Well! That's 
quite different! 

The believer in. the Bible as the Word of God 
should mark carefully this subtle attack on Christ's 
deity by changing the meaning of almah to a term con- 


noting a more advanced age when virginity is no long- 
er implied. It is going to be hard for the Revision 
Committee to convince thoughtful people that they did 
not tamper with the translation here. 

There are many more questionable renderings in 
the R.S.V., involving church discipline, the punish- 
ment of the wicked dead, the authority and inspiration 
of the Scriptures, etc., but what we have already point- 
ed out should be enough to cause sincere and thought- 
ful men to hesitate to trust the translation. 

Perhaps we should point out briefly, however, 
how the translators also betrayed their ignorance of 
dispensational truth in this new version of the Bible. 

Mark 16:9-20 is omitted completely. The trans- 
lators of the R.S.V. are not the first to have omitted 
this account of our Lord's "great commission" to the 
eleven, but it has long been proven that in this case 
the wish is father to the thought. 

Experiencing difficulty over the requirement of 
water baptism for salvation and over the promise of 
our Lord: "these signs shall follow them that believe," 
many a denominationalist has rejoiced to learn that 
"The passage from verse 9 to the end is not found in 
the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaitic and the 

This is not denied, but we must remind our read- 
ers again that actually there are NO original manu- 
scripts of any part of the Bible. All are copies which 
were made in the centuries after Christ. Besides our 
two oldest manuscripts of the New Testament, there 
are hundreds of additional manuscripts (including un- 
cials and cursives). We do not know how many manu- 
scripts of more recent discovery these latest revisers 
of the Bible may have had access to, but not many 
years ago it was still affirmed that all of the additional 


manuscripts referred to above contained part or all of 
Mark 16:9-20. Furthermore, we have translations of 
the Bible and writings of the "fathers," older than any 
of our oldest manuscripts, which contain these verses. 

Even if doubt could be cast upon the authenticity 
of Mark 16:9-20, however, the problem would still re- 
main, for in early Acts, where Peter and the eleven, 
filled with the Holy Spirit, begin working under their 
"great commission," water baptism is required for the 
remission of sins, and the promised signs do follow 
those who believe. 

Gal. 2:7 has also been changed in the R.S.V. The 
phrases "the gospel of the uncircumcision" (commit- 
ted to Paul) and "the gospel of the circumcision" (com- 
mitted to Peter) have been made to read: "the gospel 
to the uncircumcised" and "the gospel to the circum- 

We wonder why the translators were not con- 
sistent enough to translate a similar phrase in Matt. 
9:35 to read: "the gospel to the kingdom," for the gram- 
matical construction is exactly the same. 

But a natural, simple, reading of even the R.S.V. 
rendering of Gal. 2:7 conveys the idea that Paul pro- 
claimed a different message from Peter, for it does not 
say that Peter and Paul were commissioned to carry 
the gospel to the uncircumcised and circumcised, but 
that while "the gospel to the uncircumcised" was en- 
trusted to the one, "the gospel to the circumcised" was 
entrusted to the other. In our opinion this still implies 
that the messages were different, as if I should say: 
"My message to John Doe will be delivered by a friend, 
while my message to Harry Smith will be delivered 
by my brother;" This would sooner imply that the 
messages were different than that, they were identical.; 

But again, if Gal: 2:7 could be -made to. imply that 
Peter and Paul had been proclaiming the same mes- 


sage, our denominational friends would still have 
Verses 2,6 and the rest of the chapter to explain. 

There are other passages where the R.S.V. trans- 
lators seem to have been influenced by dispensational 
problems, but those who have come to recognize the 
distinctive character of Paul's ministry and message 
have been confronted with comparatively few of these 
difficulties and will soon enough question the render- 
ings involved. 


Thank God, the Old Book is big enough to defend 
itself. The translators of the R.S.V. have called many 
of the fundamentals of the faith into question, espe- 
cially with respect to the person and work of the Lord 
Jesus Christ, but they could not corrupt every ren- 
dering or silence every testimony to these precious 
truths without discrediting themselves entirely, and 
for every doctrine they have called into question there 
is a volume of Scripture to defend it. 

Thus we do not fear for The Book; we fear only 
for its readers. With additional equipment to work 
with, the translators of R.S.V, have doubtless given 
light on some hitherto obscure passages, but they 
have also stricken at the very heart of the Christian 
faith in many of their renderings. Hence, while the 
version may be put to good use by those who have 
access to the Hebrew and Greek, it is unsafe for the 
average reader. Especially do we urge all who be- 
lieve the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant Word of 
God not to fall for the line that the R.S.V, contains 
only minor changes in phraseology and does not affect 
basic meanings. This is not true, 


Neither the A.V. nor the R.V. were copyrighted. 
They were given to the people to use and reprint at 


any length. This is not so with respect to the R.S.V., 
for this new translation has been copyrighted by the 
Division of Christian Education of the National Coun- 
cil of Churches of Christ in the United States of 
America. This means at least three things; 

1; It is the Bible of the National Council of 
Churches, a liberal organization with many rank un- 
believers and radicals at the top. It does not represent 
the professing Church, but only its Modernist wing, 

2« We are not free to reprint its text at length 
except by N.C.C. permission. In this way the N.C.C. 
can force its literature upon Sunday School and other 
Church organizations by declining to grant permission 
to incorporate the R,8.V, text into any literature but 
that put out by NX.C, 

3. The proceeds from all sales of the R,S.V\ go 
Into the coffers of Modernism. The N.CXC. has com- 
mercialized the new version so that all royalties from 
its sale go to promote the N.CC. 

We believe that Bible believing Christians will 
avoid the Revised Standard Version for these three 
reasons alone. 


to get this issue of the Berean Searchlight out among 
those who may be affected by the R.8.V.? We have 
had additional copies printed, which may be purchased 
at 10 for $1.00 or 100 for $7.50. 

PLEASE REMEMBER: The Berean Searchlight is 
kept shining by the gifts of Christian friends* 

+**-** *-r~+*+r 




"I kept back nothing that was profitable 
unto you" (Acts 20:20). 

"I have not shunned to declare unto you all 
the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). 

Both the above statements are found in the 
record of Paul's farewell address to the Ephesian 

The apostle was very closely attached to 
these men of God, having previously labored 
among them faithfully for three years. And 
now, passing through Miletus, some thirty miles 
away, he sends for them. He is on his way to 
Jerusalem and feels certain that he will never 
again see them on earth. He must give them 
one farewell word of encouragement and ex- 
hortation before going on. 

When they have arrived he reminds them 
how he served the Lord among them with hu- 
mility of mind and with many tears and testings, 
often in peril of his life, faithfully teaching them 
both publicly and from house to house. But 
what impresses us most of all is his declaration: 

UNTO YOU" (Ver. 20). 

And he emphasizes this fact further as he 
calls upon them to bear him witness: 


* * 


How many men of God, we wonder, could 
say this today with respect to their ministry of 
the Word? How many, even, among those who 
clearly understand the gospel of the grace of 
God? Alas, how many today do keep back blessed 
truths which they well know would be profitable 
to their hearers! How many do shun to declare 
all the counsel of God! 

There are so many reasons, they tell them- 
selves, to speak with reserve; so many reasons to 
refrain from preaching openly truths that may 
be ever so blessed. And so they always go just 
so far, but always come short of proclaiming 
boldly those truths which are most vital of all; 
those truths which are the very conclusions to 
their premises, and to which they keep hoping 
to lead their hearers. 

They call this tact. If only it were tact! If 
only they declared the whole counsel of God tact- 
fully! But instead of tactfully preaching the 
whole truth, they "tactfully" keep back truths 
which would prove of blessing to their hearers, 
and shun to declare the whole counsel of God, 
thus proving unfaithful both to man and to God. 

This was not the spirit of the apostle of 
grace. He had been entrusted with too glorious 


a message to keep any of it back. He recognized 
too keenly his obligation to men and his responsi- 
bility to God, to shun to declare unto them all 
God's counsel. To the Psalmist's words: "I be- 
lieved, and therefore have I spoken" the apostle 
could respond: "We have the same spirit of 


And even when the test became hardest and 
he was held a prisoner in Rome, he was still de- 
termined to keep nothing back, and requested 
the prayers of other believers: 



Paul was one of the most tactful men of God 
the world has ever seen, but he did not confuse 
tact with faithlessness: he did not allow diplo- 
macy to degenerate into duplicity. His one great 
passion was to make known "the gospel of the 
grace of God" in all its fulness (Acts 20:24), and 
in the fulfillment of this ministry he displayed 


the very essence of tact, "speaking the truth in 
love" (Eph. 4:15). 

Let us learn the lesson if we would serve our 
blessed Lord acceptably. We may avoid offend- 
ing certain hearers by our mis-named "tact," and 
hope that certain other hearers will draw the 
proper conclusions from what we so cautiously 
say, but in reality we will but deprive both our 
hearers and ourselves of further light on the 
Word by such unfaithfulness for, depend upon 
it, God will never give us further light on the 
Word until we stand true to the light we already 

May God give us all "the spirit of faith." 
May we join our voices with those of the Psalm- 
ist and the apostle, and say with them: "We also 
believe, and therefore speak/' 





„*f^j[T*'^jr , s^ »*"w.« »-^_*i 



OUR NEW COVER introduces Volume XIV of the Berean 
Searchlight. The additional cost will be fractional, and the maga- 
zine will now be much more attractive to place in the hands of 
your friends. The cuts were specially made up for us as a con- 
tribution from a good friend and reader. 

DO YOU HAVE a copy of Volume VIII of the Berean 
Searchlight which you can spare?. We need one badly, and will 
be gfad to purchase it at several times the original price, 

all donors within the next month, Cod willing. We praise God for 
supplying the needs for this growing work for another year, 

more office and storage space badly, Much of our literature is now 
being stored in the East Please join us in prayer that at least 
$4,000.00 will come in soon, for a down payment on suitable property. 


» J ^J*^«»-^j»^^i'x.»r^.*>^H»r^H»r^-ii'^ji#^r^.tr% k j«r^**^ t *t^.**" , vj»^.**^j< 


PLAN NO W . . . 

to attend 

of the 


Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday — May 19-21 

to be held at 

2925 W. State St., Milwaukee, Wis. 


A Feast of Christian Fellowship and Bible Study 

Write for information as to accommodations to 


3370 N. 36th Street, Milwaukee, Wis. 


Dear Friend of the Work, 

In the living room of the 
old homestead where the 
writer was born and raised 
there was a reed organ on 
one side and a grand piano on the other. Above the 
piano there was a sizeable stained glass window dis* 
playing just one word: Ebenezer, the name that Sam- 
uel gave to the stone he set up as an acknowledgement 
of his own insufficiency and a monument to God's 
faithfulness in the trying days when he judged Israel 
"Stone of Help/' he named it, saying: "Hitherto hath 
the Lord helped us" 

This word on the stained glass window at home 
was dad's way of saying the same thing. Dad literally 
burned out his life for the Lord, both in winning the 
lost to Christ and in organizing Bible conferences to 
get God's people established in the truth. Laboring 
tirelessly every day and almost every night he accom- 
plished much, but he wanted that Ebenezer there as a 
constant acknowledgment of his own insufficiency 
and a constant testimony that the Lord had always 
been his unshakable Stone of Help* Sometimes guests 
would ask the meaning of the word on the stained 
glass window and it was always dad's joy to explain 
it to them* Often in times of stress he, and we, would 
find strength in this reminder of God's unchanging 

This all comes to mind as we begin another year 
in the publication of the Berean Searchlight. We 
want to set up our Ebenezer too. Sometimes the going 
has been rough, but what a source of strength has been 
His never-failing faithfulness! We would rather not 
look back at what has been accomplished in the work, 


for this shrinks into insignificance in the light of the 
need, the obligations, the opportunities that still chal- 
lenge us. We would rather remember His faithfulness, 
and trust Him for the days to come. "Hitherto hath 
the Lord helped us/ ? and by His grace He will see us 
through to still greater victories as we keep looking 
to Him, "Brethren, pray for us," and may God richly 
bless and use you too. 

Yours in His blessed service, 


You could help us so much by putting the Berean 
Bible Society on your monthly financial budget. 
This is a pioneer ministry, sending the Berean 
Searchlight, free of charge, to constantly increas- J 
ing numbers to reach them with the gospel of the 3 
grace of God and the Word, rightly divided, i 

Won't you begin helping now? 




I A Book you've wanted . . . 

Real Baptism 


10 Chapters — 72 Pages 

Deals with all of the 106 passages on 
baptism in the New Testament 

Prepared for Classroom Use 
50c each 15 for 





18 an organization for the promotion of Bible study by 
means of Bible conferences, recorded Bible lessons and 
the dissemination of Bible study literature, It is a non- 
profit organization, a work of faith supported by the 
gifts of Christian friends. 


is the official organ of the Berean Bible Society, and is 
sent to anyone anywhere upon request. 



A new 52-page book by the editor, on a subject which many of 
our readers have inquired about 

25c each 6 for $1.00 


A miniature newspaper, entitled GOOD NEWS 
EXTRA. Headings: age of grace extended — god 





100 for $1.00 300 for $2.00 

. *^~ _^^~* ^^^ — ^ — 

The Fundamentals of Dispensatioitalism 


( A Comprehensive Study of Dispensational Truth 

{ Contains: 15 chapters, 8 Bible study charts and a quiz i 
jj at the close of each chapter. Price: $3,00 £ 



Strong-'s Exhaustive Concordance + $11 5q 

170 Bible lessons & Sermon Outlines, By J. 0, Q'Uair. . . \ 11*00 
Real Baptism, By Charles F. Baker ^50 


The Fundamentals of Dlspensationalism . . . , s 3 00 

Two-fold Purpose of God * ^{j 

Imitation leather cover 1 1 " 1*00 

Z'P ur J?** 1 * 1 in God ' s Word— Superstitious or Internment? I ! ^25 

The Writing's of John— Their Dispensational Position 25 

Is Salvation Certain?, •........*....';. "an 

The Christian Public Should Know 'it 

Paul The Master-builder . / \ *g 

The Apostolic Authority of the Twelve ,..»■.■•.-...*!' 15 

The Early Ministry of Paul % 5 

God's Plan of Salvation Made Plain « . . . "iK 

This Is That— But What Is This? . . ( * \k 

Answer to Catholicism— Do Protestants Have It?. , . , t ] * \s 

Water Baptism— In God's Program for Today? ! I "lfi 

The Dimensions of the Mystery *i£ 

The Pear of God— Does Perfect Love Cast It Out?, . # *15 

Two Hungry People 15 

The Lord's Supper— Its Place Today *is 

The Preaching of the Cross 1? 

The Believer's Walk—In This Present Evil Age, ♦ , '* 'is 

Unanswered Prayer — A Personal Testimony ,\ , *05 

Sonship— A study of the Bible Word "Adoption" . \ \ *05 

Simple As Can Be o& 

Now Is the Time— An Appeal to the Indifferent. \\\\\\\\\ *05 

Methuselah and Paul „ . . 05 

The Lord's Prayer and The Lord's People Today! .] ] ] 05 

S!^^y as ChriBt Baptized?— Should We Follow Him? ios 

Will There be Tears fn Heaven? 05 

Standing, Walking and Running: With Paul \ . \ \ ] *05 

Ambassadors For Christ ,'•■..•• !og 


What's The. difference? . 200 for ?L0G 

The Nicest Teacher in the School 200 for It 00 

The Quarrel in the Toolshed. , 200 for $1 00 

A Three-letter Word £00 for Ji 00 

Good News E!xtra™Miniature Newspaper . , 100 for J 1.00 


Entire Set by C. R. Stam , , . $ 5 o 

All 60c Books- ..,.,* 3 f or $t*oo 

All 15c Booklets ..]//./ 10 for Il'oo 

Ail 5c Booklets ■,.-..!', 26 for $ L00 

Order From 

2947 North I7th Street Milwaukee 6, Wisconsin 


2947 N. I7th Street 
Milwaukee 6, Wis. 

Return or Forwarding 
Postage Guaranteed 

Sec. 34.65(e), P. L.&R. 


PERMIT NO. 3015 

Pastor & lirs* -&* Van Dyke 
5200 Hilda we. 
Af f ton 33, Mo* 





— Psa. 119:105.